Defense cuts jeopardize NATO's effectiveness, Panetta warns

Comments (6)
haggler wrote:

So — it’s the ‘ol “end of the world as we know it” speech, eh Leon? Time for a new scriptwriter. You’ve worn out the old standby. Just not believable any more. Billion-dollar aircraft? 20 aircraft carriers? Troops in 150 countries? 700+ military bases? Enough! Time to cut, cut, cut, and cut some more. I think 1/3 the current size should suffice nicely.

Feb 22, 2013 3:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Right now NATO and the UN be damned. We have a Country to save. Let the rest of the world save itself for a change/or not. See you on the other side.

Feb 22, 2013 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blah77 wrote:

Good. Why shouldn’t it? Defense budget is not above the fray when it comes to fiscal issues, especially when it comes to our bloated spending on that front. So many of our defense industry programs have shown a knack for consistantly underdelivering, suffered delays, ran over budget, or flat out cancelled after many billions have already been poured in. JSF, LCS, Comanche, MEADs, airbourne laser, just to name a few major ones during the past decade alone. Frankly, the bidding process for these ambitious new toys is no longer about who can do it for less but rather whose proposal contain the most lies. As these shenanigans went on, guess who were the ones that got the shaft? Clue: when our troops arrived in Iraq in 2003, many of them even lacked basic gear such as armored door plating for humvees or proper body armor and many that they did have turned out to be defective. What is wrong with this picture?

As for NATO, these days it is mostly an antiquated military alliance without an enemy to fight. Last I checked, the Warsaw Pact is long gone and many of its former members are now NATO members. NATO can not become a world policing force because that would contradict the entire point behind the United Nations. Now of course certain people will say that the UN is sometimes ineffective but even with those weaknesses, I would much prefer a world organization that at least tries to represent 7 billion human beings as opposed to one that only represent 1 billion. To turn NATO into the global equivalent of the 1% would be a recipe for unilateralism disaster. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan for recent examples or the British Empire (unchecked unilateral global power with a multitude of allies/colonies) as an older version. I rest my case.

Feb 22, 2013 3:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beancube2101 wrote:

Those richest NATO fat cats are playing jackpots as Wall St insiders instead of building our infrastructure of the future needs. The cuts are effective on paper only right now. They still have huge amount of cashes fooling around. They hate digging their own pockets, that is the reason there is so much noise from the media. Don’t be fooled by them. They are the richest among us.

Feb 22, 2013 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse

European F-35 purchases will be scuttled, if not already sunk now that there’s some doubt that these American wonder fighter jets are even capable of extended flight, never mind being able to defend themselves in a fight against WWl biplanes.

Feb 22, 2013 9:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fullblad wrote:

As Eisenhower put forth, “if we offered another star to the generals in exchange for budgetary cost savings we would more than just succeed in trimming costs….what we need is someone who understands how the military works…”

Feb 23, 2013 5:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.